The case of the “New Haven 20” will be heard by the Supreme Court this summer.
This case has been covered to death, but for good reason. At issue is the warped and dysfunctional canard called “disparate impact.”
Being unable to show where ANY standardized exam “discriminates” against ANY specific ethnic group, the pro-quota/pro-racial preference side has hidden behind an inanity called “disparate impact,” which purports that “any standard that disproportionately impacts” an ethnic group proves de facto discrimination.”
Under the standard of “disparate impact” the mentally handicapped SHOULD be given the allotted number of spots in Harvard Medical school, proportionate to their numbers in society.
The perversity of “disparate impact” is a legal fiction that has been tolerated by the courts to achieve certain goals that otherwise probably wouldn’t have been reached, but it’s come at such a high cost that today, few legal scholars still support or defend that policy.
Abigail and Stephan Thernstrom put the case in this perspective; “The case poses a familiar question: Which road will lead to the racial equality most American seek: racial quotas or color-blind, meritocratic standards?”
In a free society, based on individualism and private property rights (as America IS), there is only one possible answer – Meritocratic standards, whether the outcomes on such temporarily favor one group or another.
There is and never has been any such thing as a “discriminatory test.” Tests are designed to “discriminate”/discern between the most able the less able. So at issue, “disparate impact” proponents argue, “What real difference is there between the most able, say the top ten scorers and, say, number 16, or 17, or for that matter, number 42?
Another thorny issue in the case is whether, as the Thernstrom’s put it, “May a municipal employer disregard the results of a qualifying examination, which was carefully constructed to ensure race-neutrality, on the ground that the results of that examination yielded too many qualified applicants of one race and not enough of another?"
In answering that, the Thernstrom’s note that, "All applicants took the same test, and the result was the same for all because the test results were discarded and nobody was promoted," she argued. But change the race of the plaintiffs from white (plus one Hispanic) to black, and the obtuseness of her reasoning is apparent. If a disproportionately large numbers of blacks would have been promoted and the examination results were tossed out for that reason, it would have been an open-and-shut case of blatant racial discrimination.”
TWO of the best articles on this issue: http://adversity.net/newhavenfd/default.htm
AND
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124035774411441127.html#
This case has been covered to death, but for good reason. At issue is the warped and dysfunctional canard called “disparate impact.”
Being unable to show where ANY standardized exam “discriminates” against ANY specific ethnic group, the pro-quota/pro-racial preference side has hidden behind an inanity called “disparate impact,” which purports that “any standard that disproportionately impacts” an ethnic group proves de facto discrimination.”
Under the standard of “disparate impact” the mentally handicapped SHOULD be given the allotted number of spots in Harvard Medical school, proportionate to their numbers in society.
The perversity of “disparate impact” is a legal fiction that has been tolerated by the courts to achieve certain goals that otherwise probably wouldn’t have been reached, but it’s come at such a high cost that today, few legal scholars still support or defend that policy.
Abigail and Stephan Thernstrom put the case in this perspective; “The case poses a familiar question: Which road will lead to the racial equality most American seek: racial quotas or color-blind, meritocratic standards?”
In a free society, based on individualism and private property rights (as America IS), there is only one possible answer – Meritocratic standards, whether the outcomes on such temporarily favor one group or another.
There is and never has been any such thing as a “discriminatory test.” Tests are designed to “discriminate”/discern between the most able the less able. So at issue, “disparate impact” proponents argue, “What real difference is there between the most able, say the top ten scorers and, say, number 16, or 17, or for that matter, number 42?
Another thorny issue in the case is whether, as the Thernstrom’s put it, “May a municipal employer disregard the results of a qualifying examination, which was carefully constructed to ensure race-neutrality, on the ground that the results of that examination yielded too many qualified applicants of one race and not enough of another?"
In answering that, the Thernstrom’s note that, "All applicants took the same test, and the result was the same for all because the test results were discarded and nobody was promoted," she argued. But change the race of the plaintiffs from white (plus one Hispanic) to black, and the obtuseness of her reasoning is apparent. If a disproportionately large numbers of blacks would have been promoted and the examination results were tossed out for that reason, it would have been an open-and-shut case of blatant racial discrimination.”
TWO of the best articles on this issue: http://adversity.net/newhavenfd/default.htm
AND
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124035774411441127.html#
